SwiftVets.com

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

As you are new here, I am going to cut you some huss...

Please read the forum a bit before you go off half-cocked and post statements contrary to demonstrated truth.

It's common practice to invade a bulletin board and claim that you support their cause, "but, but, but..... "

That's how you're coming off here on this board.

If you truly support what the Swifts are trying to do, your posts will not contain Kerry talking points and DU propagandizing.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Bob Chamberlain]

My main problem with John Kerry is that he truly does not seem to hold any deep seated convictions. He always seems to follow whichever course will yield the greatest immediate benefit to John Kerry. I could understand John Kerry's anti-war stand, and even respect him for it, if HE showed respect for the positions he supported back in the 70's. But John Kerry has shown himself to be a man who tries to figure out which way the crowd is heading so he can run around in front shouting "Follow me!!".

In Vietnam, Kerry showed no antiwar sentiments. Indeed, it seems that Kerry (by his own words) committed most of the acts that he later branded "atrocities" and had to be restrained by his commanders from doing even worse. He quite obviously used every pretext and opportunity he could to collect as many awards and decorations as he could, deserved or not. And he quite clearly even then had an eye on a political carrer. He styled himself as the next JFK. When he returned to the US, it was politically "in" to be against the war. So Kerry became a leader of the anti-war movement, and he clearly tried to ride that wave into public office. Now, 30 years later, he is back to being the miltary hero, and is trying to ride that wave into the White House. If John Kerry had devoted his 20 minute convention film to anti-war statements and had tried to defend his actions from back in the 70's, I would respect him. I wouldn't vote for him, but I would respect him. I would even have some respect for him if he tried to forget his past - in the hope that we would also. But a man who so clearly blows with the wind deserves no respect.

Senator Kerry is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He surely had an opportunity to see the same intelligence that the President saw. At the time, he raised no objections as to the accuracy of this intelligence and he supported the war in Iraq in any number of public statements. That was the politically expediaent position to take at the time. He voted to go to war. But later, he voted against paying for the war, even when a significant portion of the requested funding would directly improve the safety and comfort of our men and women fighting that war. And now, when he has to find something to attack the President with, he claims that the President lied to the nation about the intelligence that led us to go to war. What else would you expect. If he wants to be President, he can't very well say that President Bush is doing a good job.

This "blowin' in the wind" performance is the crux of my distrust of John Kerry. In all of his adult life, John Kerry has demonstrated that what matters most is John Kerry's personal ambition. It is a tragedy that so many of our young men and women have suffered and bled and died because of the political unrest that is rooted in the middle east. But I am convinced that these sacrifices will one day result in peace and stability in this region and that, because of them, in 50 or 100 years we will be able to take down the metal detectors at our airports and national monuments. We will not ever be able to defeat Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and the like until the social conditions in this part of the world are changed. And that means freedom, democracy and a healthy economy. President Bust has made a good start in this direction in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is a long, painful road that must be followed before the ultimate goals of peace and freedom can be reached. As I said, it is a tragedy that so many young American men and women have paid a high price for what we have accomplished. It would be an immensely greater tragedy to quit before the job is done. To make this sacrifice count for nothing. I don't trust John Kerry to finish the job. But I do expect John Kerry, in pursuit of his political ambition, to make it as difficult as possible for President Bush to finish the job. And in the future, I DO NOT WANT my son's life to be dependent upon the whims of John Kerry's political ambition.

[sdonions]

Alright John here is some thing to chew on.

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

Now the way I see that is he missed ALOT of votes in the past 2 years.

[Bob Chamberlain]

Out of curiosity, I followed the link posted by GulfWarVet to www.factcheck.org. The first headline on the Web page tells you all you really need to know, "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record". But that got me to thinking. I have heard some vague comments about Teresa Heinz Kerry and funding for MoveOn. I did a quick search on the Internet and came up with the following URL:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

Assuming that the statements made on this Web site are accurate, I wonder why the news media do not continuously refer to MoveOn as being funded by the Democrats? Given the facts presented in the FactCheck article, the only link between SBVT and the Republican party is that both have been the recipients of generaous contributions from the same man. And given the number of zeros attached to his usual donations, $100,000 is a pretty paltry sum. I wonder why this one $100K donation makes SBVT a Republican funded attack group in the minds of the media? Of course, I am being facetious.

[wvobiwan]

[GulfWarVet]

Navy_Navy_Navy,

It's easy to see why you would think this, but I can assure you this is not the case here.

We share the same goal, but before you get too dismissive let me try this again...

I subscribe to the philosophy of Sun Tzu as it concerns knowing your enemy. All of us who oppose Kerry already have formed our opinion- same for the Bush opponents. That only leaves a slim number of undecideds, whom we need to swing over to our point of view. Therefore, I always make sure I place myself in my enemies shoes before I meet him in battle. As I do this now, I am gravely concerned. I have read the material, I have seen the ad, and our arguments look less than compelling. We have strong ground to stand on when we point out Kerry's post war protests and defamation, which are slimy and repulsive. But when we fixate on his combat record and impune his service on specious evidence we risk destroying our credibility. So I have to ask again- is the current he-said she-said debate going to be the best we can do? Even though we are right, this strategy is going to be a losing one if we cannot swing moderates. Can anyone here confirm this ad campaign swinging over any undecideds? I have searched, and so far have come up empty (and believe me, I REALLY want to believe!) and have had 2 people tell me this has solidified their support FOR Kerry (and in Florida, no less, which could be the margin of defeat). This is BAD.

Navy, if you can show me where SwiftVets can get some votes, I'm on board. If not, I'm going to search for some other way to keep Kerry out of the White House.

Just some food for thought from someone who gets paid to game as the enemy...

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

[carpro]

What is "specious" about eyewitness testimony?

Put yourself in the enemies shoes General GulfWarVet and open my eyes.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[GulfWarVet]

Navy/Carpro,

I'm on your side, but you are not being objective. Navy- your reply sounds very angry and does little to provide corroborating facts concerning the combat lapses we have reported. If we impune the combat service, we have got to prove it or we look foolish at best- vindictive at worst. Carpro- he has his own eyewitnesses, and they were on his boat and ours were not. If I were a judge and had to decide this case 30 years later, I would have to go with those who were present (as much as I might hate it). We stand little chance of winning any votes by attacking his combat duty with he-said she-said, and run the risk of a backlash.

We must detach from our own anger and focus in on the undisputed shortcomings with laser like focus. If we get off message, we will quickly find our butts roasting!

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

If I sound angry it's because I am.

John Kerry was instrumental in making it acceptable to ostracize and marginalize Vietnam soldiers. He lied, lied, lied.

He broke the law and got away with what was a capital offense in the military at the time.

He spit on the honor of troops repeatedly and then used them for political gain when it was expedient to do so.

Disgraceful. Disgusting.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[carpro]

Why is the testimony of Kerry's eyewitnesses any less specious than swiftvets?

You're the one that used the word. Now explain it to me.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[GulfWarVet]

Navy,

I share your anger. But by being so venomous you alienate moderates- and WE NEED THEM!!! I wish you well, but I don't see any hope of gaining prospective voters here.

Carpro,

His eyewitnesses and our eyewitnesses are both specious, and that is the problem. Neither he nor we will ever be convincing except to the choir to which we already preach, so no votes will be gained. I believe the risk is greater we will look like petty snipers (verbal, not sharp shooters), especially with GWBs homeside service and Cheneys deferments. You noticed the White House said they would never indict Kerry's combat record- losing strategy. Karl Rove's mamma didn't raise no dummy! Unless SwiftVets can become more convincing concerning Kerrys lack of combat service, I fear it will all be counterproductive.

We have a wonderful bone in his post war record- why did we have to compromise it with this combat attack?

[Chofrock]

I understand why you feel it is important to bring this out now. Being President is very important position, but I think being a long time senator is also very important position.

Why did everyone wait 30 years? Why did you let him get away with it this long?

[carpro]

I disagree GulfWarVet. His post war history was out there and absolutely no one,especially the media, would give it the time of day.

Now we have their attention and people are asking questions both about his war record and his post war record.

If you think no minds have been changed, then you haven't been reading this forum very carefully.

I respect your point of view but believe you are just flat wrong. Kerry's camp would just love to go back to ignoring his post war history like you want them to.

THEY CAN'T IGNORE THIS and are scared s*&^less and it shows.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[4moreyears]